Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

Please read this!

Dear All,

Thank you so much for the posts made regarding this! The treatment from the GMC towards my mother has been so outrageous that sometimes I wonder whether I'm going crazy! If anyone, however, is still doubtful about GMC partiality please do look at this link - EVERYBODY MUST READ THIS! when I first heard I couldn't believe it was true. It is shocking and frightening in the extreme and if they can escape unscathed from this sort of behaviour no wonder they do not think betraying patient confidentiality is a serious issue. http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3160&end=3180&view=yes&id=4267#newspost

Thank you also to those of you who have written in support. When Sarah appeared in front of the GMC on Thursday over 600 had been written on her behalf. In the case above these were taken into account as evidence towards good medical practice, whereas at my mother's hearing we were told that the GMC would not be "bullied" by Sarah's supporters!! Despite their spin, keep sending them please.

You can also help by signing online campaigns. Online patient petition
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/witchhuntofdrsarahmyhill/

Facebook Support Dr Myhill
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=108048875899603&ref=search&sid=100000728469172.4083097511..1

And of course, if you ever want to get in touch please do send a message via Facebook, I'm listed as an Administrator on the lefthand side of "Support Dr Myhill"

Thanks again and my very best wishes, Ruth

thank you Ruth, you have been brilliant working so hard for your mother

One Click say:
"One Click Note: Doesn't the General Medical Council (GMC) make you want to throw up? Although found guilty of serious misconduct by the GMC, killer Dr Jane Barton (aka Ms. Diamorphine) has been allowed to keep her job amidst outcry from the affected families. This appalling GMC decision is now subject to review by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE). Nowhere has the traditional media chosen to report the news that ex GMC Committee Member Professor Christopher Bulstrode is the aforementioned Dr Jane Barton's brother. When the GMC was questioned this morning, it stonewalled. This is nepotism of the very worst kind in action, putting people's lives at risk. This disgraceful old boys GMC charity club headed by Niall Dickson should be disbanded with immediate effect as a danger to the public."

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3160&end=3180&view=yes&id=4267#newspost

curiouser and curiouser........

The quote below is taken from the BBC news website and the link is included.

"Dr Myhill has already faced six GMC hearings since 2001 following allegations from other doctors".

This is not my understanding, does it need rectifying with the BBC?

It is at least misleading implying she has been charged or questioned six times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8650048.stm

Are you questioning the number of times, or the fact of?

Read the transcript of the proceedings and you will see that Dr Myhill mentions the prior charges and their outcome, as does the prosecution, and it does not deny them.

FWIW, they now claim that as of April 15, they have the first ever patient complaint. But they had not, at the time of the hearing, shared that information with Dr Myhill or her attorney.

My understanding is that Sarah has had 6 previous scheduled hearings, all of which the GMC subsequently withdrew.

Sarah's general approach to medicine is to look for the cause of an illness. Many, such as asthma, are actually symptoms of an underlying problem and these are different for different people. Therefore the "lazy" option is a drug that removes the symptom without helping or investigating (but as is on her website - these drugs are still useful for management of such conditions. If she didn't believe this, it would not have upset her that the GMC have removed her rights to prescribe "prescription-only" medicines). My opinion is that Sarah's use of "lazy" in these contexts would actually not be a criticism of the patient. If she was criticising anyone it would be more likely the doctors involved - who in many occassions give advice which at best could be seen as lazy or uninterested in further investigation and at worse would be considered venal because they are receiving "thank yous" from pharmaceutical groups.

"wierd and unsubstantiated"! Yes OK, she can seem weird and of course she's not always right and her ideas will evolve. But she does research thoroughly. I can't believe that she's found it in the tea leaves so if you need reference to one of her recommendations please do ask.

Let's just see how many are

1. facts, and
2. facts relevant to the complaints.

All irrelevant to the complaint and a matter of opinion.

To the embarrassment of Myhill's QC she has indeed been subject of a patient complaint (and she would have known there had been a complaint).

Fact-fail. It was one of two complaints. The first complaint by four doctors was by far the more serious as it concerned recommended treatments that they decided were of dubious benefit and potential harm without a face-to-face consultation. Jonas's complaint was secondary. The complaint was not from an internet forum at all - the only connection with the Bad Science forum was that after Myhill making a huge song and dance about the complaint, Jonas published some info on BS because the regulars there would be interested in it.

Irrelevant to the GMC complaint but.... Fact-fail. No posts have been removed, not one. But, hey if you keep repeating this lie you might get it to stick. Though you are correct about Ben Goldacre making "no effort to control the discussion". But he generally has little to do with the forum anyway. The BS forum was deluged by CFS/ME sufferers who didn't understand the nature of the complaint, the BS reaction to this can be compared with the reaction to the invasion here - at BS there was a [understatement]robust[/understatement] WTF are you talking about and here posters were banned.

Fact-fail. It is irrelevant if there have been no patient complaints (but actually there has been) and there is a whole thread on Bad Science listing the inaccuracies on Dr Myhill's site. My "favourite" (and I use the word laced with sarcasm) being her advice for those with a certain stage of lung cancer - taking Myhill's advice would mean that 6 out of every 10 patients would die unnecessarily or unnecessarily early. If you think that this does not contstitute a potential for harm then words fail me.....

This is not a new process. The GMC are bound by law to do this because it is an interim order.

Kind of - in matters of public safety it is better to quickly restrict someone's ability to cause potential harm than to let them carry on whilst discovering if they might cause harm. The "guilt" will be decided later. A similar process happens in the judicial system when prisoners can be put on remand before their guilt is decided.

Well done, a fact and a relevant one. (but see my point above)

Red herring. Until a Doctor has exhausted the NICE or other relevant guidlines for a course of treatment I would hazard that no doctor does or should have freedom of clinical opinion. Only once they have exhausted the "best practice" options is it time to begin investigating other methods. And these should be done ethically with all potential risks clearly explained.

Red herring, but anyone who hosts them had sure better have good indemnity - if some uses that advice and comes to serious harm the website-host could be in trouble.

No, in all investigations the GMC have the right to do this not just those involving patients with ME/CFS.

Look for all anyone knows (and that includes Doctor Myhill) she could have found the right treatment for (a subset of) CFS/ME patients. But we don't know because a proper trial hasn't been conducted. If you're that convinced she's on to something your energies would be better spent convincing her to team up with someone who is good at running clinical trials and run some and get them published instead of trying to wallow in conspiracy theories.

More fact fail - there were two complaints [You've done this fact-fail already - ed]. And seriously, if you believe that this case would have had substantially more media coverage if it weren't for the election then you're sadly mistaken.

And guess what since the complaint wasn't about her treatment of CFS/ME she is not prevented from recommending treatment of CFS/ME her way.

Not a high fact-to-word count there I'm afraid.

Hello all,

For those of you who have found B12 and / or Mg SO4 injections helpful you may like to join the discussions at



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...cialist-treating-patients-clinical-basis.html

There is a post of a letter from Nick Clegg MP who may have a position of some power in a few days time.

START QUOTE FROM NICK CLEGG MP LETTER

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that funding and research must be focused on the 'bio-medical' factors involved and not just simply managing the 'psychological' issues.

END QUOTE FROM NICK CLEGG MP LETTER

Best wishes

Thank you. They have stopped comments now at the daily mail article

So you admit that the main complaint was the b12? In which case why did the GMC wait until the 2nd unrelated complaint 10 months later to take any action? If patients were truly in danger surely the GMC should have acted immediately?

The recommendation was made to the gp not to the patient, therefore obviating the need for a face-to-face consultation.

If Jonas's compalint was secondary, then you are admitting that the primary complaint had no foundation and was summarily rebutted by Dr Myhill. A rebuttal to which the GMC had no response.

Fourecks

I thought you were doing a fact assessment on Mark. However you started by quoting his sentiments about Dr Myhill and the case and then gave an opinion on the relevance to the case. Opinion is not fact!

You then go onto talk about recommended dubious treatments that Myhill was reported on by four doctors. Firstly they were not dubious treatments they were simply B12 injections and secondly if you check your facts and the GMC transcript the actual issue was over prescription of the injections. Myhill clearly states that she never prescribed such a treatment and all she had done was written to the patients Dr asking them to carry out the relevant blood tests and train staff in the administering of such injections if necessary.


You then go on to defend Jonas who actually said he couldn't believe the GMC had taken his initial email seriously. Your idea of her teaming up with people who carry clinical trials to help people with ME via her expertise and then go on to claim Mark is involved in a conspiracy theory is deluded. Mark is on record on this forum at least five times stating that he does not believe in a conspiracy theory against ME. FACT!!! Instead he has on numerous occasions highlighted many published studies and papers and shared opinion from patients scientists and Drs worldwide showing incompetent practices around the issue of ME. These issues and the concerns around have also been raised by politicians. Also on that matter you laughably show your ignorance over the issues of clinical trials for ME and the FACT that the GMC and NICE will be shown to be utterly incompetent when it comes to the issue of published trials for ME as they have already done so with the laughable PACE and FINE trials that wasted millions of tax payers pounds. They publish this self serving nonsense in order to stop Drs like Myhill being involved in physiological trials and studies. This is because they have got this whole issue so badly wrong for so long they have to continue to cover it up. This is why the MRC blocks every research grant application for bio marker trials on ME. They are running scared!! I thought you were part of a site who have the interest of exposing bad science. It seems you just cant be bothered with the FACTS here. It is also a FACT that even they couldnt put a positive spin on their own failed PACE trial which was supposed to deliver the same old same old with a different name but the same psychobabble crap.


You talk about the GMC being legally allowed to take peoples medical records without consent. This is just crap!

You go on about exhausting the best practice options before investigating other methods in the quote below:

"Red herring. Until a Doctor has exhausted the NICE or other relevant guidelines for a course of treatment I would hazard that no doctor does or should have freedom of clinical opinion. Only once they have exhausted the "best practice" options is it time to begin investigating other methods. And these should be done ethically with all potential risks clearly explained".

The phrase "no doctor should have freedom of clinical opinion is, I assume not what you meant to say. Otherwise what is the point of having doctors.

However you are talking about yourself "hazarding a guess" which I presume is your definition of fact. You are also assuming that Dr Myhill doesn't adhere to NICE guidelines. She has never been charged with such a thing. Furthermore she actually goes on to examine the other routes unlike most doctors and keeps abreast of scientific and medical progress which is in line with her ethical and sworn duty as a medical doctor. Take the issue of asthma, for example. Asthma is a blanket term, one child may have asthmatic symptoms due to passive smoking another due to pollen another due to dust mites in their furnishings etc etc. You fail to understand that her approach is the correct medical and ethical one. That is to address the route cause of the problem rather than dolling out medication that can only perpetuate the problem if used as an overall solution. She would never state that any person requiring an inhailer should not carry one at all times. Your Bad Science website argument is to present this in such a way that if she saw someone having an asthma attack in the street she would kick thier inhailer accross the road.


I could go on and on but you seem to be of the opinion that the GMC have actually found anything to charge Myhill with which they have not and the whole case is a farce legally. The GMC are consistently being sued by doctors brought before them. FACT!!

I know you put alot of work into the above post but unfortunately for you it is full of waffle and not even waffle covered in maple syrup which would have made it slightly more palatable. So much work leading to nothing! That must be so annoying!!!!

One would have to say in your rambling misinformed attempt above to get your points acknowledged,

YOU REALLY FACT UP!!!!

I don't admit anything, GMC make it clear that this is the main complaint. I don't think we can be sure the GMC only started investigation on the receipt of the second complaint.

Your other points there are valid and I completely agree. They should have acted faster, I too would want to know why they didn't.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The recommendation was made to the boy's mother not to the GP. IMHO it makes a world of difference, she should have discussed it with the boy's GP first before recommending a treatment she herself would not be providing.

What? It was not rebutted successfully as the GMC transcript makes clear.

That’s a lot to answer to! But it’s Mum, so I guess I’ll settle down to it...

On matters of opinion please see http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3160&end=3180&view=yes&id=4267#newspost
The GMC stated as grounds for protecting this doctor that they took into account her 200 letters of support. Sarah at her hearing had over 600 lettters.

Patient complaint. Yes, it did embarrass her QC. Sarah tried to speak up but it as the QC was under question she wasn’t allowed to. Instead she had to point out to him on the document provided that this complaint was registered on 15th April 2010, after these proceedings had been brought against her. The complaint came from a patient she last saw about 14 years ago.

You’re quite right that it was one of two complaints. The complaint from the doctors was that she had suggested to them that they use B12 with a patient. “dubious benefit”? I don’t know but many people have written to me in response to this saying how much it helped them. Harmful, as I understand, very unlikely - especially if the doctors who complained simply chose to ignore her advice.

I’m afraid I haven’t kept up to date with the BadScience website. Allegations of posts being subsequently removed I will look into. The post that we noticed was “OK, so I finally bit the bullet and complained (anonymously for reasons that will become clear) to the GMC about uber-quack, Dr Sarah Myhill and to my surprise they have decided to launch a Fitness to Practise investigation.
Those who live in glass houses should masturbate in the basement”
"I actually find this quite funny as my initial contact with the GMC was just a speculative email to the general enquiries email asking whether it would actually be worth submitting another complaint given the failure of the previous 6 efforts. This was written with some haste during a coffee break and hence contained a few typo’s. Amusingly, after submitting my full complaint the GMC decided to use this email to front the complaint to Myhill *sigh*." This was written under the name of Jonas.

I don’t quite understand why you think that it is irrelevant that there have been no patient complaints. Our concern is that medical practice is being run by pharmaceutical interest rather than patient interest. As before, the patient complaint that you refer to came from a person who tried Dr Myhill’s Stone Age Diet recommendation in 1995 and who didn’t follow up. Her/His complaint was sent to the GMC on 16th of April 2010, after these proceedings against Sarah had been raised.

We do understand what an interim order is i.e. if you have reasonable grounds to suspect, but do not know, that a person may be capable of causing damage then, until the facts have been investigated, you take from them the powers for harm. What is confusing is why her prescription rights have been revoked. This is not relevant to either of the charges set against Sarah.

As you say “Until a Doctor has exhausted the NICE or other relevant guidelines for a course of treatment I would hazard that no doctor does or should have freedom of clinical opinion. Only once they have exhausted the "best practice" options is it time to begin investigating other methods. And these should be done ethically with all potential risks clearly explained.” The patients that approach Sarah do not do so unnecessarily – they come because they haven’t found an answer from their GP or NHS. Unless you are suggesting that neither of these have failed to follow all guideline then yes, of course, she is looking into other courses of treatment.

I did not know that the GMC were allowed to take private medical notes without patient permission. Is it also true that they are allowed to use them in a public trial that would identify that individual?

Sarah’s never “wallowed in conspiracy theories” She's spent her time, outside of patients, researching and co-writing papers such as “Chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction” which address the biochemical problems of ME/CFS sufferers.

I agree that this case being addressed by the GMC just before the general election as being their attempt to hide from the media may be an opinion. What isn’t an opinion is that the complaint was originally submitted over 6 months ago and if they thought that there was cause for patient harm they ought to have acted more swiftly.

But you are wrong that she will not be prevented from treating patients “her way”. Prescription drugs are not the answer but they are important, wouldn’t you agree, for short term solutions and management. And ME/CFS are not the only patients that have turned to her. All of her patients will be affected.

Mark's post was headed: "A few facts by way of a personal summary of the case so far..."

B12 and magnesium sulphate injections. And it was the recommendation of them, not the prescribing as has been made clear in this thread and by the GMC.

My italics - there is no evidence she added that caveat. She recommended them as a course of action without a face-to-face consultation and direct to the mother rather than in consultation with the boy's GP.

What? I can't find such a quote on Bad Science, please link to it if you can.

That is not what I meant. It is plain from the tone of his post that he believes the attack on Myhill is some kind of attack on the treatment of ME.

More conspiracy theories....

This is not just crap, See Section 35 of the medical act.

I admit I am guessing (which is why I said "hazard"), and no you are assuming that I assume that Dr Myhill doesn't adhere to NICE guidlines. If she does adhere to the guidlines first great, and when these are exhausted she doesn't just give up on the patient but investigates the alternatives (with due consideration to harm) then also good. That is what doctors should do. It is when they don't take due consideration to the harm that I worry.

In reading around this case I have certainly seen things about the GMC that cause alarm, not least the time taken to get this complaint to a hearing.

But it turns out a lot isn't waffle (I'm not afraid to admit some of it could be!), I've just contradicted some of your "facts".

With all due respect I think you should take your own advice.

Did somebody say something

Correct you have posted no facts at all.

The treatment for low magnesium levels is iv magnesium.

B12 iv is a recommended treatment all over the world. It was prescribed in the uk until 1984 when the uk govt decided it was too expensive

.She is prevented from administering treatment.Drs who have killed people are still practising without restrictions.Did you conveniently forget that?

There are many trials showing benefit of B!2 and magnesium.if you truly believe that the trial would not have received more publicity without the election then you must have the IQ of a Labrador

.The GMC don't have the right to requisition patients notes without the express permission of the secretary of state which they did not apply for.I hope the patients sue.You certainly dont know anything about internet law.There was no patient complaint involved in this case according to the GMC themselves.

ALL those words and not one correct fact.I think you may have achieved some kind of record.I did not actually think it was possible-well done

Fourecks

Ah so you admit it is mostly waffle. Also the GMC did not make application for patients medical files so that is illegal. As for all the others quotes including the Jonas one don't worry you will see them in the fullness of time as they have been saved yet now are deleted from the BS site.

ME is recognised by every medical authority in the world as a neuro immune disease. There is however a psychological school of thought on ME which is inconsistent with all the scientific biological evidence.

This psychological school of thought results in a much cheaper outcome for governments and insurance companies. This has been documented by Drs Scientists and patients worldwide and a retrovirus has been discovered which is implicated in ME neuro immune disease. Many countries have now banned blood donations from ME patients. FACT.

And the best come back you have is "more conspiracy theories".

So nowadays a debate where you are in the majority is described as a conspiracy theory. Good one!!

I will remind my 6 year old that when he is loosing an argument with his sister to call her a conspiracy theorist. I am laughing my arse off here, not in a modern overstated text message style,... but really.....I am laughing my arse off.

They must merely notify the Secretary of State and here is the relevant quote from the act:

Section 35B. Notification and disclosure by the General Council
(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the relevant date, the General Council shall notify the following of an investigation by the General Council of a practitioner's fitness to practise -

(a) the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland and the National Assembly for Wales;
​

What and waste their money?

You could be right but since this has nothing to do with internet law then your statement is worthless.

So far there has been no investigation into Dr Myhill's fitness to practice.

my you do have a short memory,dont you remember your comments about indemnity.the section you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with accessing patients records.The GMC are clearly in breach of the data protection act.

if you are going to quote statute at least know what it means